Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2019This court considers the factors set out by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 335, 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine what process is due: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and, the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural 2019This court considers the factors set out by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 335, 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine what process is due: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and, the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural | 4 | 10 |
Flores v. Floresgreen2 sentences2022Id. at 335 . 24 ANDVSA, 264 P.3d at 836. 25 Cf. Dennis O., 393 P.3d at 403-04, 406 (concluding due process does not require appointing counsel for parent when other parent retained private counsel). 26 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 896 (Alaska 1979). -9- 7610 that the resources it provides pro bono attorneys are the same as those available to ALSC attorneys. 2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 2 | 2 |
Sarah A. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Servicesgreen2 sentences2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 427 P.3d 771, 778 (Alaska 2018) (quoting D.M. v. State, Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 995 P.2d 205, 212 (Alaska 2000)). -18- 7680 basic of all civil liberties.”41 Because of their importance we have held “that proceedings to terminate parental rights implicate fundamental interests comparable with those at stake in a criminal prosecution.”42 The proceedings in which parental rights are at stake thus require according the parents due process commensurate with their importance. 2019Sarah A. , 427 P.3d at 778 (quoting D.M. , 995 P.2d at 212 ). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of KLJgreen2 sentences2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the 2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 1 | 2 |
Patrick v. Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Transportation Commissiongreen2 sentences2024Comm’n, 305 P.3d 292, 299 (Alaska 2013) (“We look to the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge to determine the requirements of due process.”). 98 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976). -31- 7684 a. 2024Comm’n, 305 P.3d 292, 299 (Alaska 2013) (“We look to the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge to determine the requirements of due process.”). 98 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976). -31- 7684 a. | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institutegreen2 sentences2024To evaluate these procedural due process arguments, we use the Mathews v. Eldridge test,97 which requires balancing three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.[98] Because the Alaska Constitution’ 2024To evaluate these procedural due process arguments, we use the Mathews v. Eldridge test, 97 which requires balancing three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.[98] Because the Alaska Constitution | 1 | 1 |
D.M. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Servicesgreen1 sentence2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 427 P.3d 771, 778 (Alaska 2018) (quoting D.M. v. State, Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 995 P.2d 205, 212 (Alaska 2000)). -18- 7680 basic of all civil liberties.”41 Because of their importance we have held “that proceedings to terminate parental rights implicate fundamental interests comparable with those at stake in a criminal prosecution.”42 The proceedings in which parental rights are at stake thus require according the parents due process commensurate with their importance. | 1 | 1 |
Parham v. J. R.green2 sentences2024To evaluate these procedural due process arguments, we use the Mathews v. Eldridge test,97 which requires balancing three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.[98] Because the Alaska Constitution’ 2024To evaluate these procedural due process arguments, we use the Mathews v. Eldridge test, 97 which requires balancing three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.[98] Because the Alaska Constitution | 1 | 1 |
Dennis O. v. Stephanie O.green1 sentence2022Id. at 335 . 24 ANDVSA, 264 P.3d at 836. 25 Cf. Dennis O., 393 P.3d at 403-04, 406 (concluding due process does not require appointing counsel for parent when other parent retained private counsel). 26 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 896 (Alaska 1979). -9- 7610 that the resources it provides pro bono attorneys are the same as those available to ALSC attorneys. | 1 | 1 |
Seth D. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children Servicesgreen1 sentence2017See 71 P.3d at 827 ("the costs and inconvenience of transporting a prisoner from his place of incarceration to the courtroom”). 35 . 175 P.3d 1222, 1231 (Alaska 2008). 36 . | 1 | 1 |
Richard B. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Family & Youth Servicesgreen1 sentence2017See 71 P.3d at 827 ("the costs and inconvenience of transporting a prisoner from his place of incarceration to the courtroom”). 35 . 175 P.3d 1222, 1231 (Alaska 2008). 36 . | 1 | 1 |
Otton v. Zaboracgreen1 sentence2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 1 | 1 |
City of Homer v. State, Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 1 | 1 |
Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 1 | 1 |
Keyes v. Humana Hospital Alaska, Inc.green1 sentence2012Alaska, Inc., 750 P.2d 343, 352 (Alaska 1988). 23 Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 539 (Alaska 1974)); see also In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 278 . 24 In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d at 279 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980)). 25 424 U.S. 319 (1976), adopted for analysis of Alaska due process clause in City of Homer v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 566 P.2d 1314, 1319 (Alaska 1977). -9- 1415 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. State, Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1996Smith v. State, Dep't of Corrections, 872 P.2d 1218, 1222 (Alaska 1994); Matter of K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 , 279 (Alaska 1991). 1996Smith v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 872 P.2d 1218, 1222 (Alaska 1994); Matter of K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 , 279 (Alaska 1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dm v. Dfys
green
1 sentence2019Sarah A. , 427 P.3d at 778 (quoting D.M. , 995 P.2d at 212 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Church v. State, Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2019Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue , 973 P.2d 1125 , 1130 (Alaska 1999) (quoting Keyes v. Humana Hosp. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.